So are you a liberal or not?

when you have already made up your mind apparently.

argue with you.

liberal noun (1820)
: a person who is liberal: as
a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
(C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved

but not entitled to their own facts. To quote the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Not believing women is bipartisan.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/10/trump-chides-lack-of-due-process-in-sexual-misconduct-cases-as-2-aides-forced-to-resign.html

President Donald Trump on Saturday bemoaned what he perceived as a lack of due process, at a time when two of his aides have been forced to resign for similar reasons.

Over the last few days, two White House staffers have stepped down under a cloud of suspicion involving claims of domestic abuse. After staff secretary Rob Porter was forced out, Trump appeared to defend him by saying Porter had denied the allegations — even as White House chief of staff John Kelly acknowledged they were credible.

On Saturday, Trump doubled down on his defense by tweeting that "lives are being shattered" by allegations that may or may not be true. The president — who has been buffeted by claims of sexual misconduct — asked: "Is there no such thing as due process?"

In Porter's case, both of his ex-wives told a news publication that he had physically and verbally abused them. One of the women said Porter choked and punched her during their five-year marriage, according to a report published Wednesday by the Daily Mail.

I’m guessing she’s not worried at all.

She may well not assembling a compelling Presidential campaign message, but the Franken resignation won’t be the driving issue.

Primary voters are her problem, don't see her getting through New York, CA, Minnesota, so good luck trying to pull a nomination out by losing her home state and the largest state.

SHE FUCKED UP!

Too bad really, she had a decent future until she let the true Kirsten out.

You never know which state will make a difference.

Nice to know her supporters (and probably herself) feel they can just right the state off. That should help her a lot.

Any other states you think she can ignore?

she'll need every delegate she can get.

BTW Obama won the caucus vote in 2008; maybe he didn't need us to put him over the top, but it didn't hurt.

And, again, what other states do you think she can afford to write off?

And I guarantee there are a lot of us out here that won't vote for her in a Primary.

Too cute by half, and she will pay for it.

Last edited Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

defenders? You guys are badly outnumber by DUers favoring Franken...and we are from states all over the country.

I'd say that's a pretty good sampling of Dem sentiment against backstabbers.

You shouldn’t take a sentiment here and extrapolate it to the party as a whole.

she win, I would vote for her in a general. She is not my first choice because of the Franken thing, but she is preferable to any Republican. I only hope we keep Minnesota.

One thing I NEVER do is let me personal feelings get in the way of my view of the real world.

win a 2020 presidential primary...this is an opinion...and there is not reason to get so nasty about this. I think she was longshot even without the Franken issue...I am not one who believes she should be punished or step down or any other of the crazy stuff I have seen here and elsewhere. She is a popular Senator, and she is not my Senator so it is not my concern. But now Sen Brown also called on Franken to resign so how could I condemn her and not him? I like Sen. Brown a great deal. He iis a great Senator.

...but I'm not asserting that it's because of the Franken issue and/or voter turn out in Minnesota.

said he (called him King Roy) kept doing certain thing that caused people to leave the big 'tent' ...and he did lose sadly. I view this as similar...she lost a certain number of voters but then 20 is a ways off too...have to consider that. Even if she doesn't win, we could never know how much if any an affect Franken had...I just looked at some of the pushback online and thought it might have hurt her chances...not saying I have evidence or even a crystal ball!

Don’t put words in someone else’ mouth.

...and I have no preference as to a likely Presidential candidate. Such adding a touch of political reality to the debate.

...and if I DO contribute to Franken, I'm flaunting my income.

Which do you want?

We might not always agree, even on the Franken issue, but I have never viewed your posts as showing off...I do find it enlightening to know what’s going on within well connected circles. Frankly, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t jealous to be within the same circles!! And I say that as a Dem that happens to, likewise, be blessed with a generous income. So, keep on posting your insight brooklynite!

It gets in the way of being outraged.

I could see her presenting her actions regarding Franken as being "brave" enough to follow #MeToo to its proper conclusion, even if it hurt a powerful male Democrat.

You must log off of DU every now and then. lol

She railroaded a fine senator because she thinks its going to help her WH bid.

She couldn't be more wrong....

He came to the district to campaign for her when she first ran in 2006. There was a standing room only crowd and they came to see him. She was an unknown.

role models now and into the future. Kirsten who?

Solid voice on our side.

No thanks.

He helped her get elected, came to the district to campaign for her when she first ran for Congress in 2006.

Maybe I'm wrong. I think it is purely a political calculation.

She was thinking of running in 2004, but Hillary advised her to wait until 2006 when she'd have a better chance. Both Clintons supported her - and this was well after he left office. And of course I can't see how anyone would benefit without Al Franken in the Senate to speak for us.

And Bill was a convenient target as part of that motive. I should note: All if her moves I consider to be MIScalculations.

Both Clintons are powerful allies and when he came to the district to campaign for her, it was standing room only. She managed to unseat a long time incumbent and I believe President Clinton's support was instrumental in that. The Clintons helped her get her start. I was at that rally in 2006 here in NY-20. President Clinton absolutely charmed the crowd.

she makes me sick

It's very disappointing.

Yet only women are demonized for it.

To call out Donald Trump for being self-serving, nor has anyone here criticized, say, Chuck Schumer this week.

Thank you.

I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton either, he is too calculating also.

Ha! Not really.

Explained changes in position and what drove those changes. Admitted that she was wrong on a couple of big issues during the past and that she did not work hard enough to fully educate herself on some issues earlier in her career. Overall, a solid case presented by her.

She clearly is passionate about women's rights and prevention of sexual abuse and assault in all areas of American society.

Thanks for posting.

That is the way life and politics work. Even the 60 Minutes correspondent, who started out hostile toward Gillibrand seem impressed toward the end of the effort covering and interviewing her for the 60 Minutes piece.

And he can still have his ethics review (paraphrasing).

Did she really say that?
She will not get my vote in the primary.
I will be changing my registration from Independent to Democrat just to vote against her.
And, yes, if she is the democratic candidate in the final, I will vote for her. Not happily.

I was paraphrasing(?).

She said he can still get 'due process'.

due process = “fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement”

and NONE of it was "FAIR"

I have absolute DISGUST for anyone who participated in that garbage

because she now knows a lot of people with critical thinking skills never bought her self-serving bullshit

When it is politically expedient.

A junior attorney in a law firm don't chose who they represent unless they resign or are willing to get fired.

I worked for one of the biggest defense suppliers as a young engineer out of college. I was somewhat anti defense, I was a big fan of US Senators who shed a light on excessive defense spending. I needed my job, I was not about to quit, I took and completed the assignments that were given to me. But I understand that some people are so pure that they can easily find fault with the decisions that I made, but that is life.

That was Gillirand in calling for Franken to resign

look like whiny, passive agressive (whatever that means, maybe you can explain) statements, but they are what they are, dismissals of foolishness.

Yeah, attacking the Democratic Party was Bernie Sander's calling card.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic party is an absolute failure,” Sanders said.

“The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice.

“The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.”

Sanders’s speech was rapturously received at the People’s Summit, a gathering of some of the most influential progressive activists and organizations in the country.

All Bernie was saying in that speech is that the party should be what it's supposed to be...a party that takes the side of the non-wealthy against the wealthy.

First mention of Bernie and you show up. No other interest in the subject of this thread? Perhaps enlighten us on your opinion when Bernie piled onto Franken?

just because they called for change.

And I don't WANT Bernie to run again-I don't think anyone who ran in '16 should run-we need to be totally clear of any of the personal toxicity of that year and the only way to do that is to be free of the personalities of that year.

Instead, I simply want the party, whoever it nominates, to incorporate the economic component of the ideas his campaign championed and to make his supporters welcome rather than treating them like they're the enemy or as though T___p is their fault.

THAT is why I sometimes to post things that sound protective of Bernie-not out of any loyalty to him, but out of the conviction that we can't win if we as a party anathemize every idea and every person remotely connected to his campaign. I'm not campaigning for anybody or against anybody...it's just about ideas and wanting us to be able to get the votes we need to get if we're to beat the Right in '18 and '20.

Can people here please trust me when I say why I do this and stop acting like I have a hidden agenda or that I'm lying when I say I don't support anybody for 2020? What possible point would there be in my being dishonest about my intent?

As to the thread...I was reading it and I haven't quite been able to decide who I would side with between Gillibrand and Franken. I'm now anti-Gillibrand but still have some serious issues with Al's choices. It bothers the hell out of me that Gillibrand said that her insistence on pushing for Al's resignation was justified in the name of defending her "right to speak out". Why would she her "right to speak out" as, seemingly, more important than standing up against sexual harassment as an objective in itself.

But since I have been here the only time I see you show up are Bernie related threads. I might be missing something, but...

Give that a thought

Sometimes, I also post less than at other times, and I've been posting less lately in general because some people now automatically give me blowback no matter what I post about.

And this actually ISN'T a "Bernie thread" (you'll note I addressed the OP at the end of the post you responded to.

When I do show up in those, it's simply because I think that the fixation some people have with attacking not only him but his supporters(and really, it's in our interest to find some positive way to connect with them, as opposed to the usual response progressive dissidents get in this party, where the party insiders band together to thwart them and then demand support from them right after said thwarting) is unhealthy and damaging, costing us new supporters from the left without gaining us votes from any other part of the spectrum.

It's not something that started in 2016-it goes back at least to 1968 in this party. And I've been pointing out the problem since at least 1976, the first year where I was actively involved in presidential politics

Instead of the usual "we'll stop them-then DEMAND their votes" thing, why not actually reach out to insurgents and see them as the source of new energy and new ideals they could be? Why not invite insurgents in, acknowledge the validity of what they're fighting for and treat them as people of value? Changing the dynamic in that way could only do us good, and can be done without supporting any candidate.

It's about a mindset, not about a person.

I have to say that I've seen Ken Burch post on quite a variety of threads. It could just be a coincidence that you've noticed him when something is Bernie related. And sometimes we see what we expect.

Perhaps they are the only threads we both frequent

I lived on the Gulf Coast many years ago for a few years Gulfport and then Pensacola. Your DU name just jumped out at me.

I am from S. Louisiana but currently reside in Central Florida about an hour from the gulf. But I will retire on the coast.

Have a nice evening.

I was in high school and my father got a job in Mississippi and later Florida. We moved from the Chicago area, so it a very different world. I loved the beaches though.

cant steal our SS and our Medicare as long as the DNC is around.

Black people and gay people and non christian religious people will not be wholesale deported or harmed as long as the DNC is around.

So there is INDEED a desire to destroy democrats.

There simply is no bigger fan or supporter of Al Franken on this site than me, and yet I can see what is going on and just how harmful it is.

I bet Al would advise people to stay united and stop the infighting, because he knows what is at stake.

That might hurt her should she run in 2020.

A lot of people find it refreshing when a politician admits to being wrong and can explain the details of what caused their change in viewpoint.

last year, as there will be many candidates to choose from in future races.

It is not just the way she went after Franken without whom Sessions would not have recused himself.

It is not that she is resurrecting Bill Clinton, who gave us a period of surplus between three Republican administrations with ballooned deficits.

It is that, when it comes down to it, she is a one dimension politician.

Besides assault on women - what else is on her agenda?

And when talking about assaulting women - is she talking only about wealthy Hollywood celebrities? What about the women working at a minimum wage in the factories, in fast food chains who cannot afford to even complain? The assault on whom is more than just "look at my dick?"

I always liked Kirstin Gillibrand! She would make a good party leader.

Joe would get my vote in the primary in a NY minute

I didn't know until the preview at the beginning of the show.

Nice try, but still a "fail".

I have had the flu for a week. Don't get it if you can help it.

For what 30 odd other Democratic Senators also did.

Including a hero of many here.

But of course they get a pass because, you know, she made them do it.

I am no fan of hers and she would not be my choice in a primary. But to see so many here trying to use her in an effort to excuse their favorite for doing the exact fucking thing she did is so obvious and humorous.

These people are Senators. If they are weak livered enough to allow her to dictate their decision then she is the best among them. At least she acted without feeling the need to go along with the crowd.

I do not like her, but can call our hypocrisy.

and she acted WITHOUT THINKING of anyone by HERSELF

Why not blame the guy who actually had to resign? Or chose to resign?

Or all the other Senators who did the exact thing she did.?

In my flawed opinion some here are using this to damage a percieved threat to their favorites.

No, let’s blame the girl who might actually be sensitive to these issues.

I use the term girl to make a point. I normally find that term very offensive and will correct anyone in a professional setting who use the term.

It's not about gender.

They are attempting to use her to remove blame for others, especially one who many love, of all complicity.

I do not like her at all. But I recognize hypocrisy when I see it.

This is the US Senate. Not the 10th grade where peer pressure rules.

I have no doubt she did it to remove a rival. But so did other Senators. If you hate her with the fire of hell but excuses all other Senators who did the same she as her...think about it.

He himself admitted he did things that made women uncomfortable. You don't get to blame the women who came forward, or even the people who called on him to resign. You blame the guy who couldn't keep his hands to himself. If he had done that, then he'd still be in the Senate.

a political hitjob.

FOR SELF-SERVING REASONS

DONE WITH HER AND I AM *DONE HERE*

But obviously I have hit a nerve. Tell me one thing I have said that is factually incorrect and I will apologize.

I really do not like the Senator in question but I try to see things with my eyes wide open.

If you are running this quick, please rethink you position.

Last edited Mon Feb 12, 2018, 08:35 AM - Edit history (2)

For an investigation is wrong ?
By going out and demanding his resignation, she played into the freaking republican game.
And, funny how no more complaints have surfaced since he left.
Quite the coinkydink, no?

Danged fat fingers.